Tag Archives: country

John King Bashes Obama for Calling Fox ‘Destructive’ and MSNBC ‘Invaluable’

CNN’s John King on Wednesday mocked Barack Obama for calling Fox News a “destructive” force in our society while at practically the same time a White House spokesman was saying MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow provide “an invaluable service” to the country. As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, the President bashed FNC in a just-published interview with Rolling Stone magazine shortly before his Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton was praising MSNBC during a gaggle held on Air Force One. With this in mind, on Wednesday’s “John King USA,” the host surprisingly derided the White House’s inconsistency (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):  JOHN KING, HOST: Sometimes you feel sad to be left out of a big debate. This is not one of those sometimes. In an interview with “Rolling Stone,” President Obama voiced the opinion that Fox News is a “destructive” force in our society. On the other hand, the left hand in this case, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the President believes MSNBC commentators Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow provide “an invaluable service” to that same society and democracy. So, according to the President this is “destructive.” King then played clips from “The Glenn Beck Show” and “Hannity.” After they concluded, King said, “And, according to the White House, this is ‘an invaluable service.'” He then showed clips from “The Ed Show” and “Countdown.” After getting some opinions from his panel, he turned to CNN contributor Gloria Borger and asked, “What happened to this? This is the President of the United States, it’s May 1st, it’s the University of Michigan, he’s giving the commencement speech, and Professor Obama is trying to tell Americans of all political persuasions, ‘Listen to each other.'” BARACK OBAMA: For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we become more polarized, more set in our ways. After the clip ended, King said to his guests, “I think he’s right. In that commencement speech, he’s right.” Indeed, but as NewsBusters reported at the time, Obama didn’t mean those words. Quite the contrary, what has come out of this White House in the past week is exactly how he feels, and that commencement address in May was just another in a never ending litany of campaign speeches Americans should take with a grain of salt. Somewhat surprisingly, King not only seems to be feeling that way, but he’s also willing to point out the hypocrisy on the air. Bravo, John. Bravo.

Link:
John King Bashes Obama for Calling Fox ‘Destructive’ and MSNBC ‘Invaluable’

Thomas Friedman Bashes Tea Party, Wants Better More ‘Centrist’ Movement

New York Times correspondent Thomas Friedman is clearly unhappy about the Tea Party, so much so that he considers the movement “not that important.” Instead, he envisions another group, “which stretches from centrist Republicans to independents right through to centrist Democrats,” sitting silently out there in America waiting for the right leader to emerge. So wrote Friedman Wednesday in his ” The Tea Kettle Movement “: The Tea Party that has gotten all the attention, the amorphous, self-generated protest against the growth in government and the deficit, is what I’d actually call the “Tea Kettle movement” – because all it’s doing is letting off steam. That is not to say that the energy behind it is not authentic (it clearly is) or that it won’t be electorally impactful (it clearly might be). But affecting elections and affecting America’s future are two different things. Based on all I’ve heard from this movement, it feels to me like it’s all steam and no engine. It has no plan to restore America to greatness. The Tea Kettle movement can’t have a positive impact on the country because it has both misdiagnosed America’s main problem and hasn’t even offered a credible solution for the problem it has identified. How can you take a movement seriously that says it wants to cut government spending by billions of dollars but won’t identify the specific defense programs, Social Security, Medicare or other services it’s ready to cut – let alone explain how this will make us more competitive and grow the economy? Friedman like so many on the left seems ignorant of history, not just the American version but also the world’s. Important political movements on this planet since the dawn of time begin with protest. A small group decides it’s being treated unfairly and begins expressing such sentiments. As it grows, those in power become fearful and either implement changes to assuage the anger developing in their population or are eventually overthrown. If the latter occurs, those doing the conquering don’t initially have a clear platform to enact once they attain power. That comes later. Did our Founding Fathers know what form of government the United States would be when colonists first began protesting the edicts of the King of England? Of course not. That didn’t come until years later. That Friedman and so many media members complaining about the lack of specific ideas in the Tea Party don’t understand this is either the height of stupidity or dishonesty. But Friedman wasn’t done, for he next threw out the same tired line about this movement not being credible because it wasn’t complaining about out of control spending when George W. Bush was president. Once again, this is either ignorant or an intentional misrepresentation, as one of the reasons Democrats did so well at the polls in 2006 was because so many of today’s Tea Party members refused to vote for Republicans that year.  The anger on the Right was first manifested in an election boycott that continued in 2008 when many conservatives couldn’t bring themselves to vote for John McCain. As such, there was plenty of anger being expressed towards establishment Republicans prior to Barack Obama’s inauguration, but it was taking forms that weren’t apparent to liberal media elites like Friedman. That said, having discredited the movement that is currently having more impact on America than the two major parties are, Friedman spoke about another: The issues that upset the Tea Kettle movement – debt and bloated government – are actually symptoms of our real problem, not causes. They are symptoms of a country in a state of incremental decline and losing its competitive edge, because our politics has become just another form of sports entertainment, our Congress a forum for legalized bribery and our main lawmaking institutions divided by toxic partisanship to the point of paralysis. The important Tea Party movement, which stretches from centrist Republicans to independents right through to centrist Democrats, understands this at a gut level and is looking for a leader with three characteristics. Leadership today is about how the U.S. government attracts and educates more of that talent and then enacts the laws, regulations and budgets that empower that talent to take its products and services to scale, sell them around the world – and create good jobs here in the process. Without that, we can’t afford the health care or defense we need. Here’s what Friedman believes “the real Tea Party” wants: To implement it would require us to actually raise some taxes – on, say, gasoline – and cut others – like payroll taxes and corporate taxes. It would require us to overhaul our immigration laws so we can better control our borders, let in more knowledge workers and retain those skilled foreigners going to college here. And it would require us to reduce some services – like Social Security – while expanding others, like education and research for a 21st-century economy. I’m not kidding. Friedman actually thinks that despite the current economic malaise strangling this nation – 9.6 percent unemployment occurring at the same time the government has exploded in size – there is a groundswell of support for raising some taxes and expanding some services. Yes, history has certainly shown homo sapiens willing to die for higher taxes! Methinks Mr. Friedman needs to spend less time in Greenwich Village and Berkeley to test his liberal theory in what know-it-all elites like him call “Flyover Country.” Unfortunately, that will never happen for these folk only care about the opinions of those residing in a handful of places on the coasts. Maybe they’ll broaden their horizons on November 3.

See the rest here:
Thomas Friedman Bashes Tea Party, Wants Better More ‘Centrist’ Movement

Segway Company Owner Plunges Off Cliff on….Segway.

Ooops! I hate it when that happens. added by: Progresshiv

Afghanistan War will cost at least another $60 billion, at least…

The war in Afghanistan may cost another $60 billion dollars and last ten more years, even if U.S. forces start leaving the country in 2011, potential Libertarian presidential candidate R. Lee Wrights said today. A NATO training-mission document recently uncovered by the Associated Press estimated it would cost about $6 billion dollars a year to train Afghani military and police forces. Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander in Afghanistan, has said that a successful counter-insurgency operation could last another ten years. “That means this war will cost at least another $60 billion to finish a job we never should have started,” said R. Lee Wrights. “No wonder our country is going broke.” Even with the training the NATO document acknowledges that Afghanistan will remain largely dependent on U.S. forces for security for years. The document also includes plans for large-scale infrastructure projects for “establishing enduring institutions” and “creating irreversible momentum” according to the AP. “The only 'irreversible momentum' we're creating is the irreversible momentum driving America deeper and deeper into debt,” Wrights said. “And the only 'enduring institutions' we're creating is the enduring institution of a welfare-warfare State that supports corrupt governments under the guise of fighting terrorism.” Wrights said he's troubled by comments Petraeus has made about the withdrawal of American troops, which is supposed to begin in July 2011. “He seems to be hedging his bets,” Wrights said. After nine years of war, Petraeus said that it is just now that the United States has the organization and people in place to fight a counter-insurgency operation. “The general is reputed to be an expert on this type of warfare and has said it can take years, even decades, to wage successfully,” Wrights says. “So if we are just getting started now, it could take ten more years to 'finish the job.' That's unacceptable.” Wrights is also troubled by the fact that the general refers to July 2011 as the date “when a process begins, the pace of which is determined by conditions on the ground.” Petraeus characterized the process as a “thinning out” of U.S. forces, rather than a “turning over” of security for their own country to Afghanistan’s citizens and authorities. “We have already endured one war where the generals and politicians kept telling us they were seeing the 'light at the end of the tunnel,' but that light never got any closer,” Wrights said. Petraeus recently spoke out against plans by a Florida minister to burn the Qur'an, saying that the action would put American troops in danger. “What is a greater danger to American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen is keeping them in a war we should not have started in the first place, helping prop up a corrupt government,” Wrights said. “If we truly want to keep our troops safe, we should bring them home now.” Wrights is considering seeking the LP presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 should be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. He has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states. Wrights, who was born in Winston-Salem, is a writer and political activist living in Texas. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-raleigh/afghan-war-will-cost-another-60-b… added by: shanklinmike

Matthews: Businesses Sitting on Trillions of Dollars to ‘Screw’ Economy and Obama

Chris Matthews thinks American businesses are refusing to spend money in order to intentionally harm the economy as part of a long-term plot to “screw” President Obama. Such political paranoia was actually uttered on Monday’s “Hardball” as the host chatted with Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and Charles Mahtesian of Politico. Readers are strongly advised to prepare themselves for the kind of conspiracy theory normally reserved for the likes of Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, and members of the far-left who actually believe George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had a hand in the 9/11 attacks (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):  CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, a great question, Charles, that wasn’t on my list to ask but I’m going to ask you because you seem like a sophisticated guy of many parts. You think business can sit on those billions and trillions of dollars for two more years after they screw Obama this time? Are they going to keep sitting on their money so they don’t invest and help the economy for two long years to get Mr. Excitement Mitt Romney elected president? Will they do that to the country? Yeah, Chris, business owners and corporate executives across the fruited plain are intentionally undermining their companies and their personal fortunes in order to impact an election that is 25 months away. Certainly, they’re not keeping stockpiles of cash out of fear of: rising taxes, increased healthcare costs, the creation of carbon emissions targets, a double-dip recession, or the next regulatory shoe to drop from the current administration. No. They’re just remaining uncharacteristically liquid to harm the man that gives you a thrill up your leg.  Now that we’ve settled that Mr. Matthews, could I interest you in some waterfront property in southern Florida? 

Originally posted here:
Matthews: Businesses Sitting on Trillions of Dollars to ‘Screw’ Economy and Obama

Amanpour Rues Lack of Appreciation for Obama’s ‘Amazing’ Achievements, Then Slams ‘Bizarre’ & ‘Fringe Quality’ of GOP Candidates

Interviewing David Axelrod on Sunday’s This Week, Christiane Amanpour asked him to explain why “people don’t appreciate some of the amazing legislative agenda” that President Barack Obama has “accomplished,” then with Senator Mitch McConnell she denigrated Republican Senate candidates who are Tea Party favorites: “Are you not afraid that their somewhat, one would say, some might say bizarre statements, their sort of fringe quality might actually turn people off?” She also condescendingly demanded of McConnell: “What is Christine O’Donnell’s qualification for actually governing? What is Sharron Angle’s actual qualification for governing?” In a third segment, she cued up Jordan’s Queen Rania to confirm “Islamophobia” mars America: “You’ve seen the reaction and the fallout from the Islamic center, but it goes broader than that. Do you see a sort of a dangerous Islamophobia in the United States?” While she repeatedly pushed Axelrod about why Democrats were delaying a vote on extending the Bush tax cuts for “the middle class,” with McConnell she tried to discredit extending the tax rates for everyone, childishly describing how “there’s also this huge thing that the people of the United States are worried about, and that is the deficit, and keeping the tax cuts will add trillions to that.” Amanpour proceeded to recite a post ridiculing McConnell: And let me ask you this: According to Howard Gleckman at the Tax Policy Center, let’s see what he’s just written: “McConnell would have to abolish all the rest of the government to get to balance by 2020. Everything. No more national parks, no more NIH, no more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.” In that very same post, Gleckman , a former Business Week correspondent, fretted: “I fear the rest of us will be saddled with the consequences of McConnell’s irresponsible pandering” to “the tea partiers breathing down his neck.” Amanpour also insisted Obama’s economic policies are a success: As you know, the recession was declared over. There’s no recession. And many will say that, you know, they stopped it from going into a Great Depression and that they inherited this awful situation… Excerpts from Sunday’s September 26 This Week on ABC, as collected by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth: Amanpour to David Axelrod: But really, a lot of people, I mean, people from all over the world, frankly, say to me, here comes a President with a huge mandate, a huge reservoir of goodwill, huge promises to change, and, with all of that, his popularity is down. People don’t appreciate some of the amazing legislative agenda that he’s accomplished. Is this a failure of leadership? Has he allowed the opposition to define him? To Mitch McConnell: AMANPOUR: You heard what David Axelrod said about the Republican plan on extending all the Bush-era tax cuts, and that it would really, you know, put the country more in hock. Analysts say that it will cause, you know, add some four trillion or so to the national debt. Are you really going to do that? Or do you think there will be a compromise on extending the middle class tax cuts?   [McCONNELL] So do you not think, I mean, will you quote, unquote, “hold the middle class tax cut hostage” to all the tax cuts you want to extend? MITCH McCONNELL: Well, nothing is being held hostage to anything. It was the Democrats themselves who decided not to have this. AMANPOUR: Well, would you compromise on that? Even after- McCONNELL: I was the only one who offered a bill. There was never a bill in the Senate. And you know why? Thirty-one Democrats in the House, five Democrats in the Senate agreed with me that we ought not to raise taxes in the middle of a recession. What might happen down the road is not the subject today. The question is, do we want to raise taxes in the middle of a very, very tough economy? All the Republicans think that’s a bad idea, and a substantial number of the Democrats think the same thing. AMANPOUR: Right, but there’s also this huge thing that the people of the United States are worried about, and that is the deficit, and keeping the tax cuts will add trillions to that. And let me ask you this: According to Howard Gleckman at the Tax Policy Center, let’s see what he’s just written: “McConnell would have to abolish all the rest of the government to get to balance by 2020. Everything. No more national parks…no more NIH…. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.” So where would you get the cuts? [MCCONNELL] But you’re still not saying where the big, big cuts would come from because some of the things you’re talking about at this point – I mean, it wouldn’t be Social Security or Medicare, Medicaid. It wouldn’t be the defense. [MCCONNELL] So all of this comes into the Pledge for America which was announced this week, a platform for future governing by the Republicans. Now, many people say that it’s simply more of the same. You’ve obviously heard a lot of that over the last couple of days as basically nothing new. And whether they’re left, right or center, people are complaining that, in fact, it doesn’t go far enough, particularly for the very enthusiastic Tea Party base that you have. So, for instance, Erick Erickson has written about this pledge, “It’s full of mom-tested, kid-approved pablum that will make certain hearts on the right sink in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high.” How are you going to, well, you’re laughing. [MCCONNELL] No, that’s all right, but I want to ask you, how will you satisfy the base which seems to be really an insurrection now, the Tea Party? Would you agree that they’re cascading into your space? [MCCONNELL] As you know, the recession was declared over. There’s no recession. And many will say that, you know, they stopped it from going into a Great Depression and that they inherited this awful situation, but let me ask you this: You say you want to go out and win in November. I want to play for you something that Tom Ross, the chairman of the Republican party in Delaware, said to me on this program right after Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party candidate, won in that last primary in Delaware. [TOM ROSS] Right, so that’s Mike Castle who they thought would win that election come November. Now, basically he’s saying perhaps not. So how do you square that? I mean, do you think these Tea Party candidates will be good for you in November? [MCCONNELL] But, I mean, she definitely wasn’t your candidate. I mean, basically, one would say that the Republican- MCCONNELL: You picked out one Senate race. I just gave you 12 places where we have a chance of beating Democrats. AMANPOUR: No, no, no, there are many. Yeah, but there are many, even in your home state. And I want to ask you, actually, what are the qualifications, do these people have? For instance, what is Christine O’Donnell’s qualification for actually governing? What is Sharron Angle’s actual qualification for governing? Are you not afraid that they might be a turnoff, whether it’s at the- MCCONNELL: Am I afraid of having more Republicans in the Senate? Of course not. AMANPOUR: No, that wasn’t the question. The question is, are you not afraid that their somewhat, one would say, some might say bizarre statements, their sort of fringe quality might actually turn people off? I mean, for instance, what do you say about a Sharron Angle, who I know you just had a fundraiser for, who basically talks about enemies in Congress and talks and hints about, you know, armed rebellion to put them down. I mean, is that the kind of talk for a United States Senator? [McCONNELL] But you didn’t tell me what you think about those kinds of comments from people who want to be a, you know, a Senator. I mean, it’s kind of bizarre, don’t you agree? To Queen Rania: You mentioned how this extremist ideology is even coming to play in the United States. You’ve seen the reaction and the fallout from the Islamic center, but it goes broader than that. Do you see a sort of a dangerous Islamophobia in the United States? How do you assess what’s happening here?

Go here to see the original:
Amanpour Rues Lack of Appreciation for Obama’s ‘Amazing’ Achievements, Then Slams ‘Bizarre’ & ‘Fringe Quality’ of GOP Candidates

Susan Estrich Suddenly ‘Concerned’ Over Paladino Qualifications to Become NY Governor

Remember when liberals brushed aside any criticism of candidate Barack Obama being unqualified to become president because of his lack of executive experience? Well, that was then and this is now because Susan Estrich has suddenly developed “concern” over the qualifications of the Tea Party backed Republican gubernatorial candidate in New York, Carl Paladino. A skeptic might rightly believe this recent Estrich infatuation with qualifications could be inspired by the fact that Paladino is closing the gap in the polls with the Democrat candidate, Andrew Cuomo. Here is Estrich with her newly developed qualifications concern : The Republican nominee for governor of New York doesn’t spend a lot of time talking about himself, which is both good and bad. It’s good because, in truth, his surprise victory over the “establishment” favorite (and Conservative Party candidate) Rick Lazio had very little to do with his qualifications and agenda, and everything to do with his tea party-infused attacks on Albany, government and the powers that are. It’s bad, of course, for precisely the same reason. Is Carl Paladino actually qualified to be governor of New York? The question left unasked by Estrich is whether Andrew Cuomo is actually qualified to be governor of New York. Based on Cuomo’s disastrous tenure as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the answer would have to be no: Andrew Cuomo promised to “transform the lives of millions of families across our country” when as HUD secretary he announced his historic plan to increase home ownership. Eleven years later, many experts think that much-heralded transformation played a role in the devastating subprime mortgage meltdown and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Estrich doesn’t hide the fact that fear of Democrats losing is the real reason behind her recent concern over qualifications: Christine O’Donnell could win. Cuomo could lose. California could elect a Republican to replace stalwart Democrat Barbara Boxer. I’m not predicting a Democratic demise — yet — but if the most popular politician in New York (and that is Cuomo) is in trouble in a race against a guy who is all but unheard of, whose stump speech consists of off-the-cuff remarks without a hint of an agenda for governing, then it’s about time for some honest-to-goodness high-test fear to match the real anger on the other side. And thank you, Susan, for being honest over what really motivates your concern over candidate qualifications. “High-test fear” over Democrats losing big this year.

Read the original:
Susan Estrich Suddenly ‘Concerned’ Over Paladino Qualifications to Become NY Governor

Antibiotic Resistant Superbugs Widespread on British Farms

photo: Sara Novak At first these salmonella and e coli superbugs were found at a handful of British farms, but according to the Soil Association , the nearly untreatable superbugs are running rampant across the country. Find out what’s causing the frightening outbreak…. Read the full story on TreeHugger

Visit link:
Antibiotic Resistant Superbugs Widespread on British Farms

Times Watch: Obama, Bringing His Hope to the Paris Slums

His poll numbers over here may be falling, but the New York Times found a place where Barack Obama is still very popular and bringing the hope: The slum-like “banlieues”outside Paris dominated by Muslim immigrants, in Thursday’s “ Feeling Slighted by France, And Respected by the U.S. ” by France-based reporter Scott Sayare. The residents of this poor, multiracial Paris suburb say they have been abandoned. For 30 years, they say, the French authorities have written off Bondy and neighborhoods like it, treating their inhabitants as terminal delinquents and ignoring their potential. Obama evidently has the French slum vote locked up: Begun in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks as part of an effort to bolster the image of the United States within Muslim communities across the globe, American outreach in these hard neighborhoods — often referred to collectively as the “banlieues,” or suburbs — has grown in scale and visibility since the election of Barack Obama. France is home to five million to six million Muslims, Europe’s largest Muslim population, and the banlieues have long been considered potential incubators for religious extremism. But anti-American sentiment, once pervasive in these neighborhoods, seems to have been all but erased since the election of Mr. Obama, who has proved to be a powerful symbol of hope here and a powerful diplomatic tool. Many suggest the Americans’ warm reception is a measure of these communities’ sense of abandonment. Others say it is the presence of Mr. Obama in the White House. Whatever the case, the United States is now more popular in the banlieues than at any other time in recent memory, say French and American officials. And as the banlieues go, so go the banlieues! In contrast, Times reporters had extremely harsh words for tough-on-crime French President Nicholas Sarkozy , who dared to criticize the violent behavior of the slum residents: Mr. Sarkozy has often taken a ruthless us-against-them attitude…He also struck a conciliatory note, reaching out to the huge swath of French people who seem to fear him, especially in the country’s ethnically and racially mixed suburbs, where he is accused of fueling tensions with his provocative language and an aggressive police presence.

Read the rest here:
Times Watch: Obama, Bringing His Hope to the Paris Slums

Colbert (Briefly) Breaks Character in Testimony before Congress

Stephen Colbert mostly yucked it up during his congressional testimony today, but towards the end, Democrat Judy Chu actually got him to break his faux-pundit facade. After relating the story of a worker overcome by heat stroke, but unable to find medical help, she asked Colbert why he had chosen to tackle the migrant worker topic. Colbert took a moment to collect himself, and then, with a stammer he said, “I… I like talking about people who don’t have any power.” (See video from CNN.) “This seems like one of the least powerful groups of people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work and don’t have any rights as a result.” Then the comedian actually quoted the Bible non-ironically saying, “You know, whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers—and these seem like the least of our brothers right now. … Migrant workers suffer and have no rights.” Full testimony video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6kKlnVl3UE added by: Future_America